Three things a person looking at a real screen found in five minutes, none of which the
headless tests could have seen.
THE PICTURE FILLED A QUARTER OF THE WINDOW. The window opened at the largest screen the
device can make, doubled, and then drew a 320 by 200 mode at that same doubling - so three
quarters of it was bezel. It now takes the largest whole-number scale that fits: the two
modes are exactly a factor of two apart and the window opens at twice the larger, so both
fill it exactly, at four and at two. Changing mode changes how sharp the screen is rather
than how big it is.
Whole numbers on purpose. A 320 by 200 picture stretched by 2.7 has some rows twice as tall
as their neighbours, which on eight pixel glyphs is the difference between text and mush.
THE WINDOW WOULD NOT RESIZE. It does now, and the picture rescales to whatever it becomes,
still in whole pixels and still centred. How big somebody wants a screen is not the
machine's business.
AND BLACK WAS NOT BLACK. Both the paper and the bezel were tinted towards green, on the
theory that a phosphor never was neutral. On a real screen that reads as a fault rather
than as character: a background that is nearly black looks like a background that failed to
be black. Paper is black now and ink is a neutral grey, because a default should be the
unsurprising thing - anything with a point of view about colour is 254 palette entries away
and belongs to a program. The bezel is a clearly lighter grey, so what is left over when
the window's shape does not match the picture's looks like a bezel rather than like more
screen.
The two checks that name the waking colours name the new ones. That they had to change is
the check working: they say what they depend on rather than assuming it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01E2JrLzFvuFX9fgi1LDRjrW
AnachronautandClaude Opus 5
6f8ad42277